Is there a place in radical feminism for women who are married to men?

I shouldn't need to say this, but just because someone says they are using "class analysis" doesn't mean that everything they are saying from that perspective is true. People reglarly get class analysis wrong, abd often in just the same way they criticise. They fail to realise that when they say it doesn't matter that a lot of men are fine, that's not class analysis, you can turn that around and say, it doesn't matter that a lot of men are not fine, that's not a basis for class analysis either.
If you point this out most will say "patriarchy" but that's just begging the question. If they can't root the relation they are positing in material reality, more than simply examples or even statistics (groups of examples), they have not established a class.

I find it strange really, there should be nothing easier than to root male and female as a class, but I think many feminists shy away from it because once you do, it suggests that you can't in fact eradicate that class divide. The Marxist tradition tends to suggest that's what we should want and it's also what liberalism seems to want to tell us, so many people aren't willing to accept that state of affairs.

JessicaWakefieldSV

God you'd be eaten alive in the radfem groups I know.

The pursuit of ideological purity.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

It leads you down a rabbit warren of its own, where you become disconnected from reality and drawn ever more into theoretical ideas and hypothetical situations.

The problem with the negativity re motherhood is many women aren't feministified until they already have them. And they can hardly put them back!!

I just think women should keep their Nigels and Nigelitos out of radfem discussions

Then stop saying all marriage is prostitution and all men/sons are rapists. You’ve made several sweeping statements that literally say all and you mean that literally. You’ve claimed to be discussing in terms of class analysis but you haven’t, you’re one of the people I think unlimited is talking about.

I actually did go ahead and become a separatist. It's hugely controversial I know. I don't know if the struggles I had in my marriage were because I was at heart a lesbian who was conditioned into heterosexuality. Or if I am just a political lesbian-- but I don't really understand how political lesbianism works. It has to be a sexuality doesn't it. Otherwise it's just living with your mate.

Anyway, when I was married I didn't consider myself to be any less of a radical feminist. I thought the pile ons against individual married and cohabiting women were hurtful and unnecessary. I did however , have an awareness that marriage was patriarchal. So I think it would be a really bad idea to go about defending marriage in radfem groups.
Some radfem groups say motherhood itself is patriarchal. They call us breeders.

I'm not really sure where I stand on that to be honest. I'm not really sure they're right. I do think the women who are saying nobody should be having children with the world the state that it's in are right. But my children are here now and I have to deal with that. I'm not sure how helpful it is to look down on women for being mothers. It's the same as looking down on women for being prostitutes.

ThePankhurstConnection

Loved your comment

Thank you google...

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

The son is a rapist comment was an Andrea Dworkin quote about how everyone's son grows up to exploit women - cause patriarchy - and how they have the potential to grow up and be a rapist. Wish I had the actual quote to hand!

I have DS's btw

I am a radical feminist (although back in the day we just called it feminism really). I am also in a (long term) relationship with a man - not married and never have been, likely never will be.

I can see how many radical feminist views clash with relationships with men and can certainly make things harder as your beliefs can often create issues. I also have some sympathies with the separatist movement and I think if this relationship ever ended for one reason or another I would personally be very tempted by separatism.

That said I don't think lesbians are intrinsically better feminists by virtue of who they are attracted to - if attraction is innate and something we can't change about ourselves then to be a rad fem and lesbian is more a fortuitous situation and probably allows you to carry out radical feminism more effectively.

I am a member of a number of rad fem groups including some theory based ones, where the academics are discussed and believe me some extreme ideas are touted. I (obviously) dislike the pile ons which can occur in these groups on heterosexual women. It is interesting to see people being almost discriminated against for their sexuality and the fact they act on it (i.e. relationships with men) by people who are horribly discriminated for their sexuality in a patriarchal society (lesbians) I can see why some of the anger comes out and while I have sympathy with some of their points I refuse to be discounted out of my feminism by a few very vocal people and it is a few vocal people. I notice it is often the same people. I can accept what they think while knowing in my head and heart nothing they say makes me less of a radical feminist because often I know I have been doing this for longer, have acted on my feminism, have read about it and written about it for years.

So I look at these issues as interesting talking points and lets face it a matriarchy is completely hypothetical right now. Lets be clear radical feminism does not necessarily (in the philosophical use of that word) include separatism and it certainly doesn't include castigation of other women.

I want to write more on this but I'm procrastinating just by being on here and I need to get on with things may come back to the thread if I have time.

If "Not my Nigel" isn't class analysis then fine. But "Your husband/son is a rapist" isn't class analysis either. By definition

Can't argue with that.

I just think women should keep their Nigels and Nigelitos out of radfem discussions. You may have a good one, you may be Stockholm syndromed, nobody can know or tell

I was on that thread and some of the women on there were ridiculous. After OP left the page I made this comment:

IMO you can challenge someone's conclusions but you can't challenge her experiences.
You can't say "Your subjective experience isn't what you think it is" Not with any degree of honesty. Because... Well it's her experience. And it's subjective.
If a woman says "I love my Nigel and he's good for me" I have to accept it at face value (particularly if I know neither of them in real life).
If she says "I love my Nigel and he proves that men as a class don't oppress women" well that's different.
Even then, I'd only be able to disagree with her conclusions. Her experiences are her own.

There was a lot of talk on that page about how Radfems do "class analysis" and OP shouldn't take it personally.
But many of the comments made to OP were really unfair and crossed a line from "class analysis" to just wild speculation and accusations about OP's husband, a man they have never met.

If "Not my Nigel" isn't class analysis then fine. But "Your husband/son is a rapist" isn't class analysis either. By definition.

FWIW I am also married. My Nigel isn't perfect. Our relationship is flawed in all the usual ways. Its still a valuable relationship to me and I do not feel the need to justify my choices to idiots on the internet.

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.ancient-literature.com/greece_aristophanes_lysistrata.html" target="_blank">This idea is very oldd* but would it actually work? Or would we trigger a real-life Handmaid's Tale?

An interesting question. If we try to resist men's rule do we "trigger" them punishing us for it?

I think the answer is probably yes. Which is why so many women are resistant to feminism.

Like the American women who are threatening a sex ban as a result of the new anti abortion law. Bindel said they shouldn't bother as it would make men turn violent. She's totally right : men turn violent when they get told no

Let's just turn off the bloody tap until they start behaving themselves/stop waging war/give us our rights back

This idea is very old but would it actually work? Or would we trigger a real-life Handmaid's Tale?

SOunds great the planet, Sakura

Ohhh I get it. They're saying sleeping with a husband is about as safe as sleeping with a random.
I don't know how many randoms kill women as opposed to how many husbands. I think more husbands kill wives than randoms kill women.

BeyondDangerousTshirts

Well I'd agree with that in theory then yes.

You're more likely to get killed by a husband than by a random wacko, which is an excellent reason not to cohabit or marry.

But I don't think it's necessarily safer to sleep with a random wacko because then there's more of a chance he'll kill you, just because you've slept with him. That's what men do isn't it. Kill women they've slept with.

So I think we should just argue for not sleeping with and not living with men at all.

Sakura, the argument was that statistically most women who face DV do so in het relationships, and most abusive behaviour comes from men we know. You’re more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger etc. And hence theoretically it is safer to have random encounters than to have a long term relationship. Even down to the fact that if a partner does something you are uncomfortable with sexually, many women will avoid saying anything to not rock the boat, whereas in a one off encounter they may be more likely to feel able to complain about his behaviour and GTFO (personally I doubt that, socialisation n’all...). Of course (as the posters did acknowledge in the conversation) this doesn’t allow for stats being the way they are precisely because we are encouraged not to have sex with random strangers in the first place! The comparison was made between the fact that most child abuse being by a friend/relative, but that possibly being skewed by people not leaving their children in with random strangers!! Doesn’t mean you should assume children are safe with strangers, does it...

They were saying that if you're attracted to men, you should only have casual sex. How the fuck is that safer for a woman than being in a consensual relationship?

I think they sound more like libfems than radfems. I mean I get what they're saying, I went through a similar feminist phase.
It's the idea that marriage is prostitution so cohabiting is better (but that didn't really work out well for women) and then the idea that we're all equal now so I can sleep with men if I want, when I want and as many as I want (except that didn't really work out well either because it's women who shoulder the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and abortion).

Both are arguably as bad as each other. That's why today's new wave of radfems are saying no let's run with the idea that all intercourse should be off bounds : in porn and prostitution, in marriage, for free in one night stands or in cohabiting relationships. Let's just turn off the bloody tap until they start behaving themselves/stop waging war/give us our rights back

One big problem with online groups is they could be anyone. Its just a bunch of anonymous usernames.
Its like here, when people see everyone that posts here as one group without realising there are also people who are not feminists posting.
In the past when women met face to face it was harder to pull that kind of stunt.

Your place in feminism is where you stand. Its yours, own it.

I've also been in radfem groups where they start hating on mothers, and I am a mother.

It's quite hurtful and there's nothing you can really do except embrace some theory and reject others.

I also want to say about the namalt. The problem is not that your Nigel isn't like that; the problem is that you telling people your Nigel isn't like that doesn't really help anyone: it's like saying you were clever enough to bag yourself a good one, but other women weren't. I know that's not what you meant but that's all you're saying when you say "not my Nigel". That's why it's better not to say it. Radfems use class analysis so when they talk about men they just mean men as a class, not every single individual man.

I've just put forward feminist theory on another thread that marriage is prostitution.

However I've been married to a man, had two children by him, and it was during that time that I became a radical feminist. I think I kind of knew marriage was prostitution before I married him, but whatever, I had my own reasons for doing so, as all women do

I do not judge married women, or cohabiting women. There's been a link on another thread about how impossible it is for women to afford housing on their incomes.

As long as you don't use anti feminist thought stopping stances like "not all men" or "not my Nigel" which are basically just annoying ways of preventing radical feminists from getting on with talking about issues

I sincerely hope you are happy in your marriage and that it works out and that you are fine. But if you ever end up in a position that you're not happy, radical feminism can help clear your head somewhat

That said, it sounds like your husband was genuinely being supportive when you opened up to him

In my opinion, honestly, no. I believe marriage is the height of patriarchy. I’m bisexual but I resent the fact I’m attracted to men. I wish I was a 100% lesbian because while some individual males are alright, men as a class are responsible for pretty much everything that’s wrong with the world. The concept of tradition and social expectation is largely arrangements that subjugate women. Until parenting is viewed as 100% equal task (and I don’t even want children) and society is structured not just to benefit men, I don’t believe it’s possible to have a truly equal relationship with a man.

OP You deserved a better teenhood than that.

They were saying that if you're attracted to men, you should only have casual sex. How the fuck is that safer for a woman than being in a consensual relationship?

50% of rapes are by a current or former partner and 80% by someone you know. So only ever shagging strangers is safer than serial monogamy. Counter-intuitive, but true. A third of men think it's not rape if they don't stop if asked once sex has begun. I think back to all the times sex with long-term partners has hurt and I haven't said stop, and been made ill by it, and I realise that it was because I didn't want to have them prove to me that they didn't regard "stop" as a valid option, because then I'd face the heartbreak of LTB. In a one night stand, I don't care about losing him and so I have said and will say "stop, you're hurting me" and will use force to resist if he doesn't. By contrast, women seldom punch or kick those they love.

Sex with men puts my health at risk, and arguably it does for most women. Who takes contraception that quadruples her risk of stroke? She does. Who gets post-coital cystitis? She does. Morning after pill? Abortion? All her problem, whilst some men won't even wear a condom without complaining.

If you consider everything I've just said, it's no surprise that some women take the separatist option, in fact I'm rapidly heading that way myself. The problem is that separatism isn't the magic bullet to end patriarchy. Separatism is a partial escape from patriarchy for individual women (much as transitioning to become a transman is) and won't work for woman as a class. First, if we all refused to have sex with men and have kids, men would force us to, either at a grassroots level through abduction and rape (as seen in India where there is a shortage of women) or by getting the govt to do it for them (as seen in Romania with Decree 770, which is what govts do if they perceive a shortfall in births). Second, most women don't want to be separatist, many want kids (remind me where I'm posting again?) and kids in moderation are needed to perpetuate the species.

I would argue that radical feminism needs to centre the needs of mothers, because they can't just go the separatist route, they have kids in tow. The separatists are already in a position of relative safety, we've reduced our rape risk by half and minimised our chances of DV by having no male partner. The women who have kids and live with men need us to fight their corner. Raising children shouldn't be life-threatening, yet many male abusers turn violent for the first time during their victim's pregnancy. We need to look at the roots (this is where "radical" comes from, "radix" meaning "root", we look at root causes not symptoms) of male violence and destroy it. Separatism treats the symptoms of patriarchy for some women but it doesn't get to the root of it for all of us.